|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When President Joe Biden issued a proclamation on the last day of February in honor of Women’s History Month, which was then about to commence, he made abortion one of its central themes.
In doing so, he employed a misleading euphemism that has become a common cliche used by pro-abortion politicians: “their own bodies.”
“Last year,” said Biden, “the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping away a constitutional right from the American people and the ability of millions of women to make decisions about their own bodies, putting their health and lives at risk.”
This was not the first time Biden used the term “their own bodies” while advocating for abortion.
Last August, for example, Biden issued a proclamation on Women’s Equality Day, expressing a “commitment” to “protecting women’s rights.”
“This commitment is more important than ever in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” Biden said.
“As states across the country strip women of their ability to make decisions about their own bodies, families, and futures, my Administration remains dedicated to protecting access to critical reproductive health care, regardless of gender, race, zip code, or income,” he said.
In May 2022, the Senate took up the Women’s Health Protection Act. “This bill,” said its summary, “prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.”
All 50 Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin voted against ending debate on this bill and thus killed it.
“Republicans in Congress — not one of whom voted for this bill — have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives,” Biden said in his response to the vote.
When the Senate was debating the bill, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Biden’s rhetoric.
“Senate Republicans will face a choice: Either vote to protect the rights of women to exercise freedom over their own bodies or stand with the Supreme Court as 50 years of women’s rights are reduced to rubble before our very eyes,” he said.
Vice President Kamala Harris has also frequently used this same euphemism when discussing the killing of an unborn child.
In May, Harris spoke at a gala for EMILY’s List. On its website, this group says: “We elect Democratic pro-choice women to office.”
“You know, it seems like yesterday, but it was actually a year ago this month when we were all together at this dinner and the Dobbs decision had just been leaked,” Harris said that night. “And there were three words on my mind that night: How dare they.
“How dare they attack our healthcare system,” said Harris. “How dare they attack our fundamental rights. How dare they attack the freedom of the women of America to make decisions about their own bodies.”
Last October, Harris spoke at a Democratic Party event in Texas, where she attacked pro-life political leaders.
“And now, many of these extremist so-called leaders are calling for an abortion ban nationwide. Nationwide,” she said. “They believe government, not women, should make decisions about their own bodies. Well, we do not.”
In September 2021, Harris spoke at a White House “reproductive rights roundtable.” “The president and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, and the right of women to make decisions for themselves with whomever they choose — about their own bodies,” said Harris. “And, needless to say, the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.”
But is it only “their body” that is affected by an abortion?
No. An abortion aborts a human life.
Yes, this human life is carried within the body of the mother, but it is not her own body. It is a separate and unique human being.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has collected a set of statements made in scientific publications indicating that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. One of these comes from Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, published in 1976.
“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” says this scientific encyclopedia.
“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization,” says the 2003 edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e. embryo).”
Do Biden, Harris, Schumer and other pro-abortion politicians not understand this basic biological fact? Or do they seek to hide it because recognizing it would destroy any argument they could make for legalized abortion — which kills an innocent human life?
Biden himself has made contradictory claims on when human life begins, while maintaining his pro-abortion position. In a 2012 debate with Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (as this column has noted before), Biden attributed his then-belief that life begins at conception to the Catholic Church — not biological science. “With regard to abortion,” he said, “I accept my church’s position on abortion as what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.”
He then said: “I just refuse to impose it on others, unlike my friend here.”
In September 2021, as president, Biden (as Newsweek has reported) expressed the opposite view.
“I respect them — they — those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all,” Biden said. “I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that. I’m not going to impose that on people.”
By constantly shining a light on the irrefutable fact that human life does begin at conception, pro-life political leaders can fully restore this nation’s legal respect for the right to life.
And of course, the rights and sensibilities of fathers are completely disregarded when it comes to infanticide. Oh. Excuse me. “Abortion. Dr Mengele would probably be proud of that vile euphemism. Women may be walking incubators but babies get half their chromosomes from the fathers, and conception is initiated by ACTIVE SPERM CELLS, NOT PASSIVE OVUM.
The Baby Holocaust is the most monstrous atrocity humanity is responsible for, and it’s mainly perpetrated by women.
The anti-abortion hysteria considers abortion at any point pure murder, the woman a murder, and politicians allowing this complicit in mass slaughter. But when we become so demented that preventing a zygote from implanting in the uterus (with the morning after pill) makes one Charles Manson … we’ve lost all sanity. FPM articles on abortion provoke such a response, as Jeff’s comment exhibits.
You’re a sicko. There is no excuse for murdering babies. Words like “zygote” are used to dehumanize infants. You Nazi. Preventing a birth has the same result as murdering a baby. THAT’S A FACT.
You pro-death scum hate facts and science.
Nazi? This is a sign of a warped hysterical abortion prohibitionist. FPM stokes this hysteria.
You stroke dicks, baby Hitler.
How about “fascist?” does that make you happier than being called a Nazi? Because you’re definitely a fascist and murder lusting fiend.
I don’t really care if a couple chooses to prevent conception. There are lots of ways to prevent pregnancy.
But humans can only logically conceive other humans. Humans go through different stages. A toddler is not less human than a teen who is not less human than an adult even though people aren’t fully developed until they are adults. Embryos and fetuses are humans in their earliest stages, but they are still humans.
Yes, a human embryo can only grow to create a human being. That does not mean it is already a human being. An acorn can only grow into an oak tree, not a maple tree but that does not mean the acorn is already an oak tree.
You’re engaging in circular reasoning. You’re assuming what needs to be proved.
You’re making nonsensical analogies.
“Fetus” is Latin for “unborn young,” no matter how many times you Moloch worshipers try to use it as a Mengele like euphemism. Children aren’t acorns or oak trees, you depraved freak. You sick fucking retard. A human being is produced at conception and grows through stages. THAT’S A BIOLOGICAL FACT. You Moloch monsters HATE facts and love infanticide. You’re perverted scum. Are infants, toddlers, children or teenagers not human because they aren’t adults?
FUCK but you Moloch worshipers are stupid liars!
But what would you be expected to know, you anti-science leftard? You all want to murder babies. Just admit it, you lying scumholes.
Can a person be any more short-sighted than this? It sounds like you are assuming there’s a possibility of something other than a human being could be the result of a female human’s pregnancy even though you admit only a human can grow a human. In the history of all mankind has anything other than a human been the result of a human pregnancy What more proof could one ask for? Circular reasoning? It appears your reasoning has been truncated in defiance of hard, cold facts. “That does not mean it is already a human being.” Listen to yourself and then ponder how you can hold such a perverse position on an issue that proves itself. You couldn’t come up with a weaker argument if you spent the rest of your life doing so.
You need to run to your local fertility clinic and free all those frozen babies from the freezer. There’s a Baby Holocaust happening in those freezers!
You’e an idiot. Artificial insemination allows life, it doesn’t destroy it. And baby banks only exist in your imagination.
Whoever down voted me must really have a blood lust to murder innocent babies. Dirtbagocrats, no doubt.
Thank you Jeff for your concern and care for unborn humans and also for their fathers.
Greg Mayo wrote, “I know the impact abortion can have on men, and how our culture’s social pressures can amplify suffering, because it happened to me. I was 18 when my girlfriend’s mother pressured us into an abortion and 22 when an ex-girlfriend called to say she was aborting our child. I was the father who stepped up, telling her I would raise the child, but she said the pregnancy would interfere with her new career. Sobbing, I begged her, “Please don’t kill my baby.” Her last words to me echoed what many devastated fathers have heard: “It’s not a baby. And it’s not your choice.”‘
Yes, few people take into account the rights fathers are denied.
My heart goes out to you.
I agree.
It is however a result of the so called sexual revolution that benefitted the male of the species and his tendency to, um, have many matings. Instead of child support, he gets off free. Thats nice for the wallet but I agree with you it is disgusting for the values of the culture we live in.
It also distorts what I believe is a woman’s natural drive to care for others, for babies and children (well. most women). In the 60’s and 70’s women tried to act just like a man. Now they get butchered trying to actually turn into a man (and visa versa).
Im no throw back or even a traditionalist, but I think we literally threw the babies out with the bathwater.
Single men have few responsibilities in most states but divorced men are held liable for things they shouldn’t be responsible for, such as financially supporting an ex-wife. Most people don’t know that an ex-wife isn’t required to spend a single penny of “child support” on the children of them and the father.
Every human turd who supports ex-wife support or benefits from it deserves to burn in Hell for eternity.
Thank you for speaking out for the rights of fathers. It has to be heartbreaking for a man to know that his wife or girlfriend either plans to or has murdered his unborn child, and that he can’t do a thing about it other than end the relationship. Of course if he does that he could end up giving her half of his income and property, perhaps for the rest of his life, but that’s how it seems to roll these days. How does this square with any sort of equality under the law, either for this father or for the child who was torn limb from limb in utero?
Laws concerning infanticide and the financial support former husbands have to provide for EX wives are indeed obscene.
As a pro-choice life-long Republican (like Goldwater) I have to agree with Biden that “… states across the country strip women of their ability to make decisions about their own bodies, families, and futures …” So do most Americans in the sense that conception isn’t the birth of a new life. Today, the debate is when does the choice to have an abortion have to be made.
The absurd idea that a single cell zygote is a human being (i.e. a person) became Catholic dogma when Pope Pius IX declared that ensoulment happens at conception, in 1869. Prior to that most denominations including the Catholic followed Thomas Aquinas that human life started at quickening, when a woman felt the fetus move. It was a good guess but as we now know that is a spinal reflex and not a sign of sentience.
You either believe in God or you don’t. Follow after man’s word or God’s word. Your choice. Choose wisely!
I respect your right to practice your religion. I hope you respect the rights of others who have no religion or a different religion even if you don’t agree with their beliefs.
What we have to agree on is to let each of us use our own judgement for make decisions for ourselves and our family.
Decent people don’t respect murder of the innocent, you asshole.
1. Our country is founded on the God יהוה of the Bible. So if God יהוה says, “Thou shalt no kill” (premeditate murder), then abortion is illegal at any stage. Thus the argument that government should not dictate how to think about abortion is nonsense.
2. The argument that a woman should be in control of “her own body” is fine, but she is aborting someone else’s body. That’s not fine, and it’s called murder.
3. If she finds herself pregnant and wants to abort, she must remove her uterus which belongs “to her” resulting in the removal of the body of the baby in so doing.
All Godless women or men wanting to abort will have to do so by discarding their own body part to fulfill the task, and since they are so Godless, it is not mandatory to weep for their equally Godless potential offspring. For if they were forced to bring them to term they will also most assuredly rear them to be equally immorally demonic as themselves.
As if you experience any signs of sentience or a conscience.
Lowlife. Why do you hate babies so much? If you love abortion, RETROACTIVELY ABORT YOURSELF. You’d be doing humanity a favor.
You regurgitate the IDIOTIC false argument that infanticide is about a woman’s body, even though that sick lie was refuted in this article. “Abortion” is the murder of a baby, not a decision about a woman’s body. The desires of families and futures are COMPLETELY DISMISSED.
Conception absolutely is the beginning (not birth, you warped freak) of a new life. Read a biology textbook, Goldwater.
As all left-wing Moby trolls, you have no facts to support your ant-science and anti-ethics bullshit.
More hysteria from ignorant fanatics. . The zygote is the beginning of a process that months later results in a human being. Just like an acorn is not an oak tree, so too is a single stem cell, a zygote, not a human being. You’re hallucinating.
I suppose you don’t think it’s a human being until it is able to vote a straight Democrat ticket.
I, like Barry Goldwater, are life-long pro-choice Republicans. … But I like your sense of humor.
That’s exactly what that Moloch worshiper thinks. And we both know he’s glad he wasn’t aborted by his walking incubator.
Again with the same nonsensical lie? Humans aren’t acorns or oaks and a human being is a human being through all stages of development. From “zygote” to old age.
Just admit you have a depraved blood lust to murder babies, you piece of shit.
not only is life established at conception, but so is the DNA that establishes its identity for the rest of his or hers life, whether it is long or short.
Yes, although by DNA, you really refer to chromosomes and genes. Those are what determine the characteristics of humans and most organic life. DNA is just the protein compound chromosomes are composed of, like carbon for lifeforms and silicon for rocks..
DNA is just a physiological blueprint … for an entity that has not yet been created. It will be used to create a human being, i.e. a person, but it is not a person.
Wrong and wrong. You really hate science and babies, don’t you, Mengele? Only the genes determine physical characteristics. DNA is just two pairs of amino acids. A protein compound It doesn’t determine shit.
Typical anti science, lefty ignoramus.
Of course it’s a lie and one that everyone knows is a lie. More than 80 times the Democrats in the House voted against any bill that would require a baby that had survived an abortion attempt any protection under the law. This a baby, outside the womb, outside the my-body-my-choice zone. They know that a newborn is the same thing as an umborn child on the other side of the 14 inch birth canal. A zygote may not look like what you think of as a human being, but that is exactly what a human being looks like at that stage of development. We were all once a zygote.
The California medical journal, California Medicine in 1970, two years before Roe, that acknowledged what “everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.” This is confirmed by virtually every embryology text; it is, as they say, settled science.
“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
– Ronald Reagan.
Settled science is ignored by anti-science lefties, as you noted. They prefer petty evasions and excuses. SCUM.
A zygote is a single cell with a blueprint for the eventual creation of a human being. The process to create a viable human being takes months. This is simple science. Before the distinctive human organs have been created, human functioning isn’t possible. You have no idea what a human being is. You scare me. You hallucinate people & Nazis.
Sorry, Ken, that was meant for Jeff. But see my sentence on stages of development.
An unborn child can …
Have a beating heart (3 weeks)
Have facial features form and circulating blood (6-8 weeks). Have a nose, arms, legs, fingers, and elementary lungs. Eyes, fingernails, toenails are formed and major organs, including the brain are functioning (10 weeks).
Dream, hug its twin, smile, suck its thumb, have facial expressions (14 weeks), and breathe the fluid it’s in; it can therefore cry; all it needs is air. (Crying, dreaming, responding to music, and memory are all signs of developing emotion, intelligence and the origins of personality.)
Feel pain at 8-14 weeks. [“It is well-known that the fetus reacts with aversive responses (during a saline abortion). The aborting mother can feel her baby thrashing in the uterus…”]
All are “human functions” …
… long before birth.
I spoke to my son regularly when he was in my ex-wife’s womb. He recognized my voice when he was born and stopped crying. The nurses were amazed but I wasn’t surprised at all.
His first word was “da-da,” which pissed off my ex.
Ken, this is a start of an intelligent conversation. All those functions require the creation of human organs, which requires different types of human tissue. At conception none of that exists.
My argument has been that at conception there isn’t a human being only a single cell that can grow and become a human being. When it does, it has organs to function as a human being.
The author of the article as well as Jeff believe taking the morning after pill to stop a fertilized egg from implanting is killing an existing human being. That absurdity should be dismissed immediately. But the concerns you raise starts an important conversation about when has development progressed to the point where ending the process is morally questionable. Thank you.
A “zygote” is viable, you anti-science retard. Human life is human life at all stages of development, from “zygote” to old age. This is simple science, although it’s beyond a lying simpleton like you.
And yes, you’d make a dutiful goose stepping Nazi.
All of my pregnancies were fairly high-risk, and the third one necessitated my having a sonogram every few weeks to see how the baby was doing. I watched this little being grow and develop, until one day in the second trimester, it was gone. Just gone. I had miscarried and the little angel was too considerate to even let me know. I was devastated, as I really felt that, over the few months of that pregnancy, I had gotten to know and love that baby. Nobody could convince me that it was only a clump of cells or a growth or anything else; it was a little person.
I have never been in favor of abortion except in rare cases but was sort of libertarian about the issue from a legislative standpoint — until then. That experience turned me from libertarian to strongly pro-life. I was blessed with another, equally high-risk pregnancy that resulted in a healthy full-term baby, so I was very fortunate. But I can’t forget the one who didn’t make it.
Thanks for telling your story. I hope you’ll see your little baby in Heaven someday.
I may quote you as I often make comments online about these issues.
Have a nice rest of your week.
Well, you’re obviously a human being, just like your baby was.
The very same Pro Abortionists who weep for the Tres or pour out the milk to protest their world of The Snowflake world
I cant find the word ”abortion” in the US Constitution so how can these morons say its a ”Constitutional Right”.. do these idiots actual read English?…
Thats not a trick question.
It was NOT made illegal it was sent over the States and not Federal Law.
FYI… There are so many ways to avoid getting pregnant these days so why dont they just use them?…
Again… Not a trick question.
A Catholic President gets Communion from the Pope and yet he speaks loudly about abortion… WTF is wrong here?.
Again… Not a trick question.
In summary, from the article and comments above, the pro-life movement lacks the philosophical & scientific prerequisites to sustain a rational discussion that goes beyond circular reasoning.
The main argument in the article & comments is that what can grow to become a human being is *already* a human being. That a single cell zygote has a blueprint, the DNA, to construct a human being as opposed to a feline animal, does not mean that it must already be a human being. This obliterates the distinction between being & becoming. It can become a human being doesn’t mean it already is a human being. An acorn can become an oak tree (not a maple) doesn’t mean it already is an oak tree. It’s not a tree at all. That a pile of building material can become a house doesn’t mean it is a house. The metaphysical distinction between being and becoming has never been so obliterated in human thought since the philosopher Parmenides.
While focusing on physiology, the important concept of rights is ignored. It is a philosophical concept & applies only to a certain entity after a certain point of development. For us, the right to life means the right to individual sovereignty & decision-making. For the left, the right to life means the right to sustenance. We used to say the right to life doesn’t mean a right to livelihood—that has to be earned. Thus, we can ask does a fetus have a right to sustenance, for surely it doesn’t have a right to decision-making. This requires that those on the right assume part of the left’s ideology & that must be explained. (end of part 1).
Your projection and transference are typical of left-wing scum. So is your hatred of biological science.
Go abort yourself. Make the world a better place.
An acorn is not a tree but it is an oak!
You are only arguing about the words used to describe stages of life.
One plus one = two.
Have you tried using logic lately?
(part 2) Finally, while physiology can distinguish between the tissue & organs of different species, it does not provide us with the concepts of rights, which only philosophy does. To argue that science can settle this is question begging. It assumes a concept of rights that needs to be supported by argument augmented by evidence. This whole pro-life literature is devoid of the critical thinking needed to approach the subject. It is ultimately based on emotion and religious dogma with repeated use of circular reasoning.
That this specious reasoning is used to appeal to hysterical emotions that vilify and cancel pro-choice conservatives is unacceptable. The silence from pro-choice conservatives who fear being cancelled is problematic. In fairness FPM should solicit pro-choice voices if it intends to remain a big tent venue. Barry Goldwater was a pro-choice conservative I will not stand by while he is called a Nazi by the hysterical.
And yet I know damned well you think that global climate warming change is a settled scientific premise.
You lefties are scum. That’s consistent even though your opinions aren’t.
Go abort yourself. Do humanity a favor.
As much as you think you understand philosophy and rights, you don’t. Everyone can agree that a dog has the right to not be abused but that does not mean he himself can linguistically articulate his reasons for those rights. The Left says people have the right to food, water, shelter, education, a vehicle, sex, gender identity, blah blah blah… they have their reasons. You are saying because a baby can not express his Right To Life, he should not possess that right Constitutionally nor should it be offered to him or defended. How absurd.